tv Washington Journal CSPAN March 26, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EDT
travelers from almost 40 select countries to enter the u.s. without a visa. and we will take your calls so you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is next. ♪ host: good morning. it is march 26. , andrats in alaska, hawaii washington state are selecting their candidate. caucuses will be held and watched -- alaska in washington. hawaii uses a presidential preference poll. this week both the wives of ted cruz and donald trump became a large part of campaign 2016. in donald trump's his displeasure about a picture of his wife som -- wife. whitetores looked at families are fair game in a campaign. we would like to look at that this morning, asking you if there is anything off-limits
when it comes to a political campaign? whether it's about a candidates, their families, other situations. is there a sense of something off-limits when it comes to the candidates and how they use information? (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you want to post your thoughts if you think anything is off-limits, you can do so on twitter. you can also post on facebook. the anti-trump super pac make america awesome that started this story this week by posting a picture of a nude rump.i a trump -- milania t that is the picture you will see. that prompted a response from donald trump basically saying lying ted cruz just use a picture from a gq shoot.
be careful or i will spill the beans on your wife. heidi cruise -- cruz came into the picture when he retweeted this picture. it shows a side-by-side comparison of heidi cruz next to milania trump. images are worth a thousand words. that prompted a tweet from ted cruz saying donald, real men don't attack women. your wife is lovely and heidi is the love of my life. that is just part of the story that took place about many other things in this campaign 2016. is there anything off-limits when it comes to a campaign? when it's a wife or family or other things. you can call us. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. s independent, (202) 748-8002.
twitter, if you want to post that c-spanwj. the first tweet of the morning when it came through was from bill. nothing is or should be off-limits in a political campaign. is a contact sport. "when if you can, lose if you must but always cheat." you to share his opinion or not on twitter and give us your thoughts on the phones as well. pages of the financial times this morning take a look at these events. the headline from the story this morning. u.s. race turns nasty as wives are dragged in. it is become a part and parcel view of this election. spouses and children are off-limits. mr. trump did not the controversy, he has come under fire for making derogatory remarks about women. there was a long, vicious
history of dirty politics in american history. we are adding a new bold chapter in 2016. say i don't think we go lower than "hand size." what is off-limits when it comes to political campaigns? give us your thoughts on the phones. first, houston, texas. brenda, good morning. is there anything off limits? caller: yes. i do think that candidates' families should be off-limits. thank you for attending -- taking my call. i think the family should be off-limits. glad that was exposed. i wonder how would it be received if michelle obama have been posing nude. thank you for taking my call. host: because you said you are
about the families -- we will continue on. fairview, tennessee. nick? caller: let me preface this by saying political correctness is destroying our country. off-limits? n-word.t use the to be fair i hear people calling your show before the morning is over with the word racist will be used. needs to be off-limits unless it's absolute truth. that they are making and i position that is absolutely true. we need to get the word racist out of the dialogue. it's very offensive to people all over the world. being accused of a racist is the worth now -- worst now and there's no basis for it. host: what do you think about wives, children? are they part of this as well?
caller: children absolutely no. we denigrate children all the time now with various other measures. you should have a show about sex education and how children are denigrated by the left. wives, i have next feelings about that. if the wife put yourself in the public domain, she is good fodder. was supposedly off-limits when clinton was doing his nonsense with other women. in the publicf domain and she needs to eat it like anything else. adults are a different story. children are the angels of the world. host: children came in early on when it came to ted cruz's daughters. he would use them in adds.
cartoonist to figure them as monkeys with ted cruz being the organ grinder. you may think that is fair game or not. you may think it's not off-limits to go that way. give us your thoughts on the phone lines and on our social media pages. leslie from massachusetts, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't think the family should be any part of the political scene whatsoever. the only thing i'm going to say is i am a donald trump supporter and i sincerely hope this is not a tactic by ted cruz. about heard comments has other things. i sincerely hope -- i'm a fourth generation marine corps veteran. i think our world war ii vets would turn over seeing what's going on on the political scene today. host: you talked about families. is anything off-limits?
now i don't think either one of them are acting presidential. we want our president to act presidential. i think this banter back and forth between each other is totally unnecessary. i think they should be speaking about what the american people are concerned about and everything else should be off-limits, yes. host: danville, virginia. judy is up next. democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. i think whether or not wives and families should be off-limits depends very much on the candidate. andhey have earned it, donald trump carded ritually -- earned it ritually -- richly, and he never proved ted cruz is behind it.
anybody with half a brain knows if your mother is not only a citizen of the united states, but one born on native soil, whether -- wherever you were born in the world, if president obama had indeed been born in kenya which he was not he so would've been a citizen likewise ted cruz. his mom was an american. you can't take that away. this guy has lied. he has been so disingenuous. i also think he is delusional if you thinks the american public would accept a first lady who has done new shots, who was from --ormulate -- formally formerly communist nation. she is from slovenia. i am 65.
i suggest for damage or cartoonist, -- and venture resurrect boris and natasha because she looks like natasha. us we aret joining talking about what is off-limits in a political campaign. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, for(202) 748-8002 independents. a new angle arising yesterday. from the national enquirer about alleged affairs with ted cruz. trumpruz accused donald of planning seeds behind a national inquirer report accusing the senator of extra marital affairs." they published an article wednesday alleging he had five secret mistresses but did not identify them by name.
the article included head shots of five women never pixelated with black bars over the eyes. it also quoted former trumpet advisor close to the real estate mogul. "these stories have been swirling for some time." i believe are there is smoke there is fire, i believe it will hurt him of the evangelical christian supporters. ted cruz did respond, particularly the charges in the inquirer story. they make comments about donald trump as well. [video clip] >> one question americans are wondering is how little donald go? is there any level to which he is unwilling to stoop? to date we have not seen it. trump set ago donald out a tweet threatening my wife. attacking her directly. heidi has done nothing to donald. we have done nothing to his family and we will not. but donald was unhappy with the
news of the day, unhappy with losing elections. with his dangerous a euros foreign policy being revealed on the world stage. he decided to engage in a personal attack directed at my wife and i my family. the national enquirer publishes this story. it is a story that quoted one source on the record, roger stone, donald trump's chief political advisor. let me be clear. this story is garbage. it is complete and utter lies. it is a tabloid smear. and it is a smear that is come from donald trump and his henchmen. host: again, that was from ted cruz. a tweet from donald trump about this situation. fight.'t start the
he knew the pac was putting it out there." yes a put up a statement about the national enquirer's story, saying he had no part of it. that was from post -- that was posted yesterday. we are asking you what is off-limits in a political campaign. joe is next from parks for, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. we are forgetting one important thing here about mrs. cruz. her participation in the formulation of the north american union. people need to know that. when ted was trying to explain his way out of his sexual encounters, it was just like bill clinton. he should have just shook his
finger a little bit more. and donald trump, don't be afraid to tell people that george bush is a liar because he is a line s.o.b. enjoy your days. host: this is james. caller: hello. what i want to say about it is that it looks to me like tromping cruz --trump and cruz are avoiding discussing issues americans want to know about and they are taking cheap potshots at each other and their families. bernie sanders discusses issues concerning americans. -- compare the debate between republicans and democrats and you will see bernie and hillary are not criticizing each other's personal business or their families. host: as far as issues or topics or people in the campaign, the you think anything is off-limits? caller: yes, i think a lot of
things should be off-limits. especially the family or children. i think it's a distraction. thingsensationalizing and people need to know the issues. host: doesn't matter if a candidate puts a spouse on the campaign trail, puts out children? if they are part of the formal campaign, the 70 difference as far as what is off-limits when it comes to commenting on those kind of things during the campaign? caller: if you will notice, like you just showed, they had that new woman. the wife of trump. families, there are a lot of families in pictures and that is fine. when you start using nudity and profanity and things like that, somebody has got to draw a line somewhere. host: this is the facebook add.
it's the back-and-forth between donald trump in ted cruz. you can comment on what is off-limits in the campaign. donald trump in responding to the story says, "i have no idea if the story is true or not but i had nothing to do with it. i did not know about it. and have not as yet yet -- as of yet read it." emily from wisconsin. independent line. caller: thank you for c-span. i love your show. the reason i am calling is because i am voting for donald trump. he has been telling the truth rallieserything at his and when he talks to reporters. what upsets me about this story thatere was a super pac was backing ted cruz that put that picture out. the way i feel about it is ted
cruz morally should have called that super pac and said i did not give you permission to do that. he said nothing. i think that donald trump is trying to protect his own wife. that is why he put that picture wife -- tedd cruz'd cruz's wife. i think donald trump tries hard to be good but when he gets attacked he will do something or say something dumb to protect his family and himself. about the one that just went on about ted cruz having affairs, i know that donald trump does not have any super pacs backing him. he is using all his own money. i believe donald trump when he says he knew nothing about this. host: as far as the topic of what is appropriate during a
campaign or what is fair game or off-limits, do you think there is a line to be crossed? you think anything is open? caller: no, i don't think anything is open. i believe women and children should be left out. i don't believe it is fair to any woman to have to be treated like ted cruz. i wonder sometimes if ted cruz didn't put that article out to get back to trump so trump we deliberately say something to protect himself. host: when donald trump retweeted that side-by-side photo of heidi cruz and his wife, what did you think when you saw that? caller: i did not blame donald trump because i don't think ted cruz have the right to do it he did. he should have talked to his committee or super pac. twopicture itself was just
women and that was donald trump's way of saying you can't do this to my wife. i don't know if that's the right thing to do that to me that his justice from both donald trump's park to get back at cruz. ted cruz should've never brought this up. he has got a history of doing that stuff, like when he stole those votes in iowa because somebody said that dr. carson was going home to florida. right away he had a group of people go into where they were talking about dr. carson -- host: let's hear from gina. good morning. caller: hi. happy easter everyone. ingree the gemini called that said -- gentleman that called in that said he wants racism to be off-limits. racism has been viewed by the democrats are so many years now.
it is untrue. it's not proven. it's just absolutely ridiculous. this political correctness of racism. this is exactly what donald trump is winning. people want a real person, a genuine person. you need to revert that donald trump is not a politician. host: that is the only thing that is off-limits, topics of racism? caller: of course not. i believe respect should be shown to the families. i do believe that. racism is what i am so sick of hearing about. it has created more discontent in this country than anything. you can blame it on the obama administration. host: the front page of the wall street journal looks at the upcoming contests in wisconsin. "turbulente is
campaign reaches ryan's door." unorthodox campaign of donald trump the setting a town in advancing an agenda that is a far cry from the cerebral can turn a brand of politics that has field mr. ryan's rise to the top of the party. the two men personify before can the road the gop faces and will be spotlighted when celebrity businessman travels to ryan's home on tuesday to hold a rally in advance of the april 5 primary. they also have sharply different policy issues. that is the front page of the wall street journal. when you go to the editorial page they look at paul ryan as well. the trump squeeze play. mr. ryan must defend his party's best interest. that means protecting the house majority that polls show a trump nomination could imperil.
elected, a gop house is the own defense against repeat of 2009-2010. the house's gop will also be crucial with mr. trump wins in november. that this is meant had no fixed andciples we can detect, the gop congress would have to steer him away from his worst instincts on trade, immigration and isolationism. bob in washington, d.c.? go ahead. caller: good morning. off-limits in lying,ns in my view, full garrity, demagoguery -- full garrity v -- vulgarity. i believe spouses are fair game. true to thet is
candidate -- i will give you an example. i don't know about the nudity from mr. trump's wife. that doesn't say anything about the character of the couple, for in this case the male candidate for the white house. or who is more beautiful? ted or donald trump's wife. what is really relevant in my view is that what bill clinton did in the white house when he was the president. just imagine the clinton back in the white house when hillary clinton or could beat the president in the white house. what would he be doing there in
the white house? game.s a fair it really should be brought up about why hillary should not be president. caller: lafayette?a in caller: good morning. you know this thing about the affairs with cruz and the women. didn't donald trump have a his wifedivorce, which and mistress -- it's the women , if theyited states vote for either of these men, they deserve a they get. host: the sides from the wives and families is anything off-limits in the campaign? is all fair game? caller: now.
the women should not be brought in there. the nude picture repulsed me. i remember. that is even worse. i don't know what other countries are thinking about us. this is terrible. host: go-ahead. caller: i don't know way women even listen to that. trump donaldtrump -- donald trump would say something terrible in the contradict himself. we don't need a dictator. we need to know what he is going to do about it, and he hasn't told us anything. host: if you're just joining us, what is off-limits in a political campaign? we have talked about pictures in the news this week. we want to get your thoughts on it. (202) 748-8000 for democrats.
(202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. a tweak comes to us from david this morning talking about the role of the first lady, first ladies in waiting as well. "hillary rodham clinton opened this door. he can next you york times story goes back to 1993. from june 23, 1993. "court rules that first lady is de facto federal official." approved appeals court the secrecy of her task force on health care and essentially acquiesced in mrs. clinton to you about the role and power of the first lady. the ruling is uncertain. it also talks about how the role
of the first lady as a federal official. you might want to put that into the context of if this is fair game or not. high.: my name is kay. i am absolutely disgusted by this entire process this cycle. i had my name removed from the voter registration. democrat.gistered i have been supporting donald trump inside my heart. i am totally conflicted. in a way i believe the spouses should be off-limits. on the same hand i believe the spouses are a direct reflection of their husbands were their wives. if the wives are out there misbehaving and are doing things that are out of character, i
believe it should come out. but in this case because they are direct reflections of their spouses. as far as donald trump goes, i believe he is trying to brainwash the general public by saying things like "little marco cruz innd lying ted order to get the inside people's heads. whenever they go to the voter registration box they can say that is lying ted or little marco rubio. as far as ted cruz goes, i do not trust him. there is something inside my body that says this man should not be trusted. he does not have my support. hillary clinton, that goes without saying. look at what she did with benghazi and the e-mail scandal. she will not be getting my vote, even if i were to reregister before the general election. host: since her spouse is bill
clinton, what about his eight years in office? does that become part of the record as well. is that fair game for her campaign? caller: i believe it is. the spouses' behavior is a direct reflection of their husbands and wives. it says something about their spouse. kay from florida. a columnist at bloomberg posted an article taking look at events happening locally across the nation but ties into issues concerning the bill clinton era. you can survive a sex scandal in the post-clinton era. she was the public made a 90's piece for the foibles of the politicians. character includes sexual conduct, but it doesn't weigh so heavily that it blocks everything else.
knockout politicians are having affairs. line is considered a lesser included offense because nobody willingly admits infidelity. because no one willingly admits infidelity. survive, former governor mark of appalachian trail fame, elected to congress. senator david venner, who admitted to dalliances with prostitutes won reelection once, but not his bid to become louisiana governor. and clinton himself, shamed, impeached, but not thrown out of office. on the maryland, independent line. a big thanks to the people behind the scenes at c-span, that make the we'll go around. wheel goable -- the around. and the cable survivors. the 800 pound doggie sitting in the middle of the room on this issue of whether spouses are off-limits or not is of course,
the former president, bill clinton. who, secretary clinton will be subject to the verbal assaults of the republican nominee as a result of his action. and people should read reminded into theied directly, face of the american people. of course, in this case, he is definitely going to be a part of this game. arthur in is maryland. we will send out a tweet about this article that was previously found in the washington post. during the campaign, hillary clinton talk about her husband's time in office and made reference to the eight years he was president. , andis from the fix opinion piece that says hillary clinton's debate comments make bill clinton fair game in 2016. also off twitter, this is david ross this morning, who says integrity seems to be off-limits over the do or
say anything tone of gop contenders. we, the people, embarrassed. john up next on the democrat line. ted cruz is have nohteousness, i doubt that if he had something donald trump, he wouldn't sit on it out of decency. but i don't think ted cruz or any other candidate should be the arbiter of what should be in or out. i think if a spouse has professional dealings, that should be fully open to scrutiny. [indiscernible] people want to check their family. we should think about that. i think the one caveat where foregone, ifs are
the candidate is expressly family values and addresses their values over another candidate. as the host: sun with good taste. -- as long as it is done with good taste. host: that is john and indianapolis. his last day on the trail was monday when he delivered a foreign-policy speech at the american israel affairs committee. host: john, from new jersey,
independent line. the morning. caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. of course, families, wives and children should be left out of it, but we all know that unfortunately, politics is a nasty business and always has been. trump strikes back when provoked by ted cruz, and history shows us if you don't strike back, you are not going to survive. i feel that's what's happening. host: aside from family, what else do you think is fair game in the campaign? caller: i think pretty much everything else. we should always be trying to raise the tenor, rather than lower the tenor. that?what do you mean by caller: take the high road as much as possible. hear from tom next, and marilyn on the democrat line. maryland on the
democrat line. caller: after a stellar performance from president obama , to descend into what we are doing now with these clowns, they add nothing to the discourse, or the uplifting of the american public. to come to what we have come to now is so sad. america is going to get what it deserves. i hope it gets one of these guys, trump or this guy ted cruz. i hope we get once a week and learn our lesson, and maybe we will recover, and we can recover from everything. but we have a lot on the line here. we have a lot on the line, a lot of people in the world end up on the united states. if this is what we want to give them, so be it. host: tom from clinton, maryland. on "wall street journal," a story taking a look at bernie sanders and hillary clinton, the topic of further debates. the democrats, the debate over
more debate brews. the former secretary of state and the vermont senator consented to face off two more times. once in april and again in may. but several weeks after the campaigns made that pledge, the democratic national committee still describes all the details of the ninth and 10th debates as "to be host: augustine, georgia, your next on the republican line. family should be left out of it.
just completely. leave people alone. host: regardless of they are a regular part of the campaign are not? caller: yes. just drop it. to me, it seems to be childish sometimes. just leave family and friends -- as you know, when you put your name out there, it doesn't matter if you are politics entertainment, you are open to scrutiny. that -- justing drop it, leave it alone. let's get on with other things like the russians, let's get on other things like immigration. let's go beyond the stuff. it's like being in the sandbox with a lot of little kids. it really is. is one thing about donald trump that scares people, he wears his feelings on his sleeve. he is not afraid to say what is on his mind. and when the stuff hits the fan, he's not good of a dancing in argentina, he's going to head back to the white house to get
where he belongs to try to figure out the situation. host: mike in augustine, georgia mentioned the events in brussels and events concerning isis aching the first page of "new york times," this morning. a key isis commander killed by u.s. forces. saying american forces initially hoped to capture the commander. host: that press conference took place yesterday. to go to our c-span website, you can look for it in here this comments by the defense secretary. those comments by
the defense secretary. let's hear from stephen corpus christi, texas on the democrat line. caller: i was calling about this issue with donald trump. beessa williams couldn't miss america, according to his pageant rules, because of her pictures. but his wife can be first lady of the united states? really? , so she was born and raised in a communist country, were her family members fighting against americans? think about this. that doesn't even make sense in nobody's book. some things are off, but something is you have to know. host: why do you think you have to know that? when you think it's important to know -- why do you think it's important to know? trump's wife'sld
family fought against americans as a communist, we need to know that. host: bob, new york, independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. thank you for taking my call. that family, children, these are not political issues at this time. it's really very important for people to know about them. , it'smp goes off-limits on him. it's just become so normal. he's the kind of person who loves to talk against women. or questioning their life. i'm ashamed of my country of trump gets elected. republicans just mentioned it's
really hard for us. they are making us the object of ridicule around the world, except for mr. kasich. i sense that he is a very good candidate. he's noble. he's a great person. he has good character. he's not in the disgusting fray. and he has no chance to be the nominee, but i hope you can get the momentum to run again. as he started. side, i see the decent candidates. at least they try and show people how america can be great, and much better than what we are right now. with the standards of trump comments to of noxious into low, were not going anywhere. he just keeps re-tweeting pictures related to others, making it big so that people can see it and not vote for the
candidate. i don't think this is really good. he has no respect for people, at least for those people who want to vote for him. he gets even worse and worse every day. it comes out and says to cherish when he is threatened by intelligent women, he reverts. it's pretty clear, people should not vote for him. here's charlie in ohio. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. there are a lot of things that are off-limits. you get someone up there that's talking about you like ted cruz his wife did about trump, i never heard from's wife talking about ted cruz like that. it's all fair with that then, if you want to bring yourself into it. a lot of people are talking about how trump is disgracing this world, obama has disgraced us more than anything in the whole wide world. trunk disgrace is nowhere near obama has.
--trump couldn't just recess disgrace us. host: you said there are things that should be off-limits. caller: your wife or husband should be off limits unless he got there campaigning. if they are running their job, they should have their jaws run back. for that, obama is just a disgrace. we're talking about trump, we need someone who's going to impeach obama and get someone in there knows what they're doing. host: judy lives in scranton, pennsylvania. democrat line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm a democrat for donald trump. i think he would be a wonderful president. i think people can see through what they are doing, the other side. this with the wives of think is very dirty. i think donald trump is only in rebuttal to what others are doing to him. i have yet to ever hear him talk about women or put women down, i really mean it. host: the reach we of the two
pictures that we referenced earlier, he retweeted it, it wasn't an original tweet. do you think that falls to the fair game category? caller: i just feel the way i , i think he's just in rebuttal to what others are doing to him, really do. they're trying to ruin him. it all boils down to what the man has. he has an empire, as we all know. i think that bothers a lot of people. people shouldn't be that way because the money has a little more than they have. i really think that is the whole thing in a nutshell. int: we we are from gwen birmingham, alabama. democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning, pedro. my comment to this. donald trump has made the republican party very awful. i want to say this too. gentleman who called and make a statement about president
obama. you need to research your history. madepresident has never this country embarrassed. he has class and character. his wife does also. host: what's off-limits in the campaign? caller: off-limits should be your wife and your children, or your husband, if you got involved in things. to the people that calling in thinking hillary clinton is responsible for what bill clinton did. let me tell you something. a lot of men have affairs on their wives. no one is responsible for what their husband does. says every knee must bow and every mouth must confess. you have to confess for your own sins. she doesn't have to confess for what bill clinton did. was -- trump -- 10
from -- ted cruz was wrong to bring up donald trump's wife. not going to get you into heaven. bill glenn, you brought up clinton. doese become fair game -- he become fair game because of hillary clinton, not only because of his affairs, but because of the years in office, that's totally off the table when it comes to hillary clinton in your opinion? caller: yes, it is. this woman is running in her own right. pedro, judgment record, not bill clinton. it should not be fair game. that's bill clinton. i'm sick and tired of men trying to make this woman responsible for what this man did. i'm sick and tired of this. she didn't do nothing wrong, as
far as her character is concerned. somebody wants to bring up things about what happened in benghazi, ok. clinton is not responsible for what her husband did. no man and a woman in america needs to be responsible for what your spouse does. host: we appreciate you responding to my questions. that's less, we will take at this time. coming up with recent event in brussels in a statement made by some of the presidential candidates about muslims, stemming from what happened in brussels, the university of maryland shibley telhami joins us. later on the program, also it comes to brussels, sparta debate on who u.s. let's enter the country by legal means. the program, nathan sales of syracuse university, formerly of the department of homeland security will talk about the visa waiver program
and how the u.s. tracks those who come into the country. but first, our "newsmakers guest," was the republican who is heading the national republic or -- republican committee. he ran a political consulting firm. he talks about the possibilities of a contested republican convention, and the chances that house speaker paul ryan to be drafted as the party's nominee for president. [video clip] >> i do think if you can't win it out right for you get there, i don't think anybody has it in the bag when you arrive. i think you will be very tumultuous, there will be multiple ballots, unless someone is literally inches away. as for speaker ryan, i certainly taken at his word. i don't think he has any desire to be the president rouhani. if he did, he would run for it. but sometimes you can be a figure of destiny. he was very much that the speaker's race. he didn't want to do it, but frankly, it became evident that
he really was the only person that could have united the conference,.net through the end of last year, and gotten us off to decent start this year. he has already been vetted, he's been on a national ticket, millions of people have already voted for him in that regard. we know how he performs, don't think there's a person in politics or doesn't like or respect paul ryan. even people who disagree with him like him as a person. represent thees kind of vision and values as a republican you would want to put forward. if we develop a chaotic situation at a convention, there is a chance that he, or someone else could emerge. fan, ig paul ryan certainly would be happy to see something like that happened. for that to happen, it literally has to happen on its own. we did see that in the speaker's race. this is a much different, more complex process.
think the house conference can be chaotic at times, just look at the thousands of delegates from every state in the union, a lot of them never having been to a convention up with various allegiances. if someone emerges out of that, don't know. >> "washington journal," continues. joining us is shibley telhami, sadat professor per piece -- for peace. good morning. we will get about to that topic. could we start though with your thinking on what happened in brussels and how that affects not only sentiment over there about muslims but my -- might affect sentiment here. guest: public opinion is very sensitive. when you track it, there are spikes up and down. in my own opinion, as for american public opinion, i think it's likely not to have a huge effect on it. remember, we gone through 9/11. -- had a lotormed
of impact on americans of islam and muslim people. i don't think it's substantially changed in the last decade. really, the first couple of years of changed a little bit, but we haven't changed all that much. in addition to that, i think what we see now, because we have such a polarized debate, that you are going to see intensification of the polarization rather than a significant shift in overall american public opinion. as for europe, that's a different story. i think it's a different story not because they are more used to it in some ways than we are. they have more terrorism on their soil. over the years, they learned how to deal with it. just because all the stuff that's happening with the influx of refugees coming after the paris attacks, is happening in it's clearly hard. we see it in many countries, we see it clearly in germany. it's going to have consequences
for policies, it's not just going to be a question of attitudes. we have a different issue to talk about later on, the united states doesn't face the same set of issues. obvious that, there has been some terrorism on our soil. we have faced that. we could face it again. we can't prevent attacks on schools. , muslims are more integrated into american society then are mentally -- are many muslim communities in many muslim countries. that has been a problem. att: when you take a look incidents in united states, the sentiment change, and thinking san bernardino in texas, you thosethose into -- incidents, does sentiment change greatly for the perception? guest: on some issues it does. we've seen on whether or not people are open to absorbing refugees. there's an element of fear.
it's not even just a philosophical interpretation of what's happened. everyone gets afraid. whether it's liberals or conservatives, for their children. such anuse we have had entrenched transformation of public opinion towards islam and muslims after 9/11, we see the shift is not very strong. i will give you an example. with regard to my poll that i conducted, if you look, for 9/11,e -- initially after american public opinion in folder were taken immediately after 9/11 were not the negative. they were more positive than negative to islam and the muslim people. that started shifting with all the coverage and intensification of focus on this issue, and the war on terrorism and the war on iraq. by the end of that decade, over 60% of the american public had negative views of islamic religion. change, even a
moment of optimism in 2011, when we had the so-called arab spring , with the arab uprisings. really, american public opinion during that time change towards arabs. when they saw initially was , when before it was violence, this peaceful transformation, americans started having positive interpretations of what's happening. they were not anti-american, the pictures in cairo galvanized a lot of people around the world. havercent of americans positive use of the egyptian people at that time. even then, though, opinions of islam is a religion stayed where they were before, over 60% negative. and yet, four years later, after things have gotten much worse, we have the rise of isis and the
beheadings, when i did this poll, we have the shooting down, the bombing of the russian aircraft, still focused on all these events. it didn't change much from 2011. it stayed the same level. the reason for it, in my opinion, is you have this intensification of polarization of american politics. when you look at american public opinion, it is a divided america on this issue. we forget that. american evil can see it in our -- the american people can see it in the debates. it's not what america, we're talking about different issues that people are focused on. you see that in attitudes on this issue. for example, if you ask americans whether or not they have favorable or unfavorable goingof muslims, you are to have republicans have unfavorable views, democrats have very favorable views. issues,d on multiple
including whether there's a class of civilization -- clash of civilization between muslims and the most in world -- the western world. what we see because of reinforcement, you have a republican narrative and a democratic narrative, the independence -- independents caught in between. people are holding on to their interpretations, even in the middle of fear, and there is fear. an understandable fear that people have that comes out of all these events that are frightening to people. host: the survey that our guest referenced came out in december of last year. you can find it on our website, it will show you information as far as sentiment is concerned. we take a look at that and the vote throughout the morning. if you want to guest -- to ask our guest on the shibley telhami, questions about islam, here's what you can do so. democrats, call (202) 748-8000, republicans, call (202) 748-8001 , independents, call (202) 748-8002.
muslim americans, if you like to give your thoughts, call (202) 748-8003. steve is in indianapolis, indiana, democrat line. you are on with our guest, shibley telhami. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. with the tone that he's taking -- the poll that he is taking, you can take that poll and like you said, it's two different americas. can't imagine how it's when to be at donald trump or ted cruz gets in with the islamic extremists out here, that's a breeding ground for guys with views like they have. republicans don't like the islamic state that all. -- democratscrats tolerate the religions in the except them, but nobody except the extremism. this is going to be a breeding ground for them with views like
donald trump has, for not just that, but his extremist views on everything. host: steve, thank you. guest: put trump aside. middle of ae political campaign, i don't know what his beliefs are in even the public doesn't really know what public and -- what candidates believe or don't believe. that there's a narrative about the source of the problem in the middle east, some people see that in some of the polling as more on the republican side in general. islam itself is the problem. it's not just militant islam, but somehow the theology of islam has lent itself to more militancy. we have that. you'll find that on the democratic side. you don't find a profound clash of civilization assumption, and you don't find that even among the public in general. the majority of the american public, over 57% after think there is no clash of civilization. but you will find people who think that.
so there's a question of narratives. but these are just minority militant groups we need to focus on, just like the administration has put it on. thatmost analysts, i think to be the case. but there is another school. that other school of thought is what you do inside america. significant muslim population in america. of course, there are varying estimates as to what that is. because it's not in the census. they are really estimates. but a lot of significant numbers. and whether or not, just like some of our candidates are suggesting, you start watching them because of their religion or their ethnicity, or whether that would be counterproductive. what we see is the argument, certainly where i fall is if you see one of the big assets of america is that we don't focus on people because of their
religion and ethnicity. we treat everybody in america, unless we have specific reason to target them, and then we should, obviously, everyone would agree on that treated as doesn't matter whether ethnicity is. but we don't. and the more you treat communities like they are unusual or they are suspect, the more they behave that way. i say in my polling, whether it's here in america or the what weorld, we are have to defend. everyone is complicated, a muslim is not just a muslim. a muslim is an american, could be pakistani, could be egyptian, could be lebanese. a muslim is the citizen of the world, professor, teacher, a lawyer, a laborer. whatever they are, they are all these things. then identify them specifically by focusing on one aspect of them and say this is the one i want to label you as, what happens?
people rally behind that, and that label starts determining what they are and who they are. that becomes more problematic than it is an asset. that's the reason why think this is wrong, and this could be counterproductive in this is this is not what america is about. if we move in that direction, we are in trouble as a nation, whether we are looking at hispanics or muslims or jews or whatever it is that we are looking at, that would become a productive. host: it was ted cruz's response to a brussels talked about, his views on muslim communities, as he described it. here's a little bit of what he had to say. [video clip] ted cruz: if you're concerned about gang violence, what is law enforcement do with proactive policing? you go into the neighborhoods were gang violence is a problem and you work practically to get gang members off the streets. and by the way, the people you are protecting our the residence of those communities your today the victims with gang violence.
it's often african-americans and hispanics, it's low income americans who are often the that violence. by having a serious police presence they are, you are protecting those communities. the same is true in the muslim community. where radical islamic terrorist don't just murder christians and jews, they murder other muslims as well. i we need to fight and defeat radical islam. host: what do you think about that? guest: it's as if we have segregated communities in america. he said we go to these committees, what are you talking about? i have a neighbor who is a muslim and a neighbor who is jewish and a neighbor -- what are we talking about? people are dispersed, they're not just concentrated because of their religion in america. you might have some in some areas where it's more a cluster of certain communities, but that's not what we have. second, what are we talking about in terms of this in new york? there are over 1000 muslim policeman in new york alone.
in the u.s. military, we have over 5000 people in the u.s. military for muslim. so what are we talking about? and the fbi, you don't think the fbi has many muslim or arab's were genuine americans working out? had we break that down? -- how do we break that down? and if the police are breathing down your neck and their only identifying you as a muslim, that's a problem. there was a woman lawyer from new york who is a muslim who wrote a wonderful piece in the new york times right after who week, iething like last thought of myself as a feminist, is a new york woman lawyer, as a new yorker. up ands morning, i wake i think of myself as a muslim, as a suspect, as a person not belonging. and that's what happens. you make people
feel out of place, and the more they are threatened, the more they rally behind that aspect. host: brian in michigan on the republican line. caller: i think what ted cruz said was partly right. it's logic and common sense. have a president that wants to pander to anybody other than the american people. he's more worried about keeping his image of being a liberal guy that he is about protecting his country. he's more interested in that than anything. people are sick of political correctness. i believe that muslims are against it when i see a trailer basis our leaders out there saying we want nothing to do with isis. but i don't. it's just lip service right now. didn'tfirst of all, i really mean specific test
response basically ted cruz are from, but let's look at the question of what the president is doing. is she pandering, not to the american people, but outsiders not to thendering, american people, but outsiders? the majority of people don't think we have a class of civilization. the majority of the american people have a positive view of muslims. even when you're looking at the majority of the american people who may be uncomfortable with -- thethey feel president is catering to the majority of the public. we are polarized, see are going to have very determined minorities on each side that want to pull you in different directions. that's not what the president is doing. we can argue about the president's effectiveness. at the holder from question of whether or not his war on isis has been as effective as it should have been and why isis emerged, and i think that's
really the story of the day. ,hat's what we're talking about about isis and its ability to have reach globally in ways that we wouldn't expect. i happen to think that isis is principally, first and foremost a product of the iraq war that emerged in the large part because of that. you look at what isis is, it's a morphing of al qaeda and some of the fighters of the saddam hussein regime, who is secular, not al qaeda, coming out of the iraq war with the sunnis feeling threatened. both going against the shia dominated government as well as the united states forces and emerging to fight. and the opportunities that opened up with the arab uprisings that created much more instability they could exploit in the middle east and expand into syria. the origins of it has nothing to do with the president, per se. it has to do with something else. you could even argue, and some people argue this, i don't know
-- this is a little more consultative. what motivates isis itself, i happen to think that when you are looking at isis and saying what's the difference between them and al qaeda? they come out of al qaeda, originally. withwas al qaeda in iraq them operating in iraq. what is the ideological difference between them? is not a lot. they both view islam and mobilize over islamic civil is in. -- symbolism. neither one of them likes the western united states. but there was a difference. isis that initially you know what, we definitely see the west and the u.s. as a threat like al qaeda. that's not our initial focus. we're going to focus on changing regimes in the middle east. so the battle initially was actually at home, not abroad. thatof it is they sensed
the arab uprisings meant people really want to change from regimes, and they were focused on that. the arab uprising was saying against the usa, they were all against the regimes. they mobilized along these lines. the question is whether or not the military intervention by the accelerated the shifting of priorities to target the west. that's a debatable issue the people who think both ways on that. so you can go, even on the intervention, like did we intervene enough or more than we should have, that's also debatable. host: pennsylvania, robert is in fayetteville. independent line with shibley telhami. caller: thanks for having me. i think you are splitting hairs a little too much and ignoring the 500 pound gorilla in the room. isis does what it does because it's following the koran. tosays you have the right have a holy war against unbelievers, that's what they're doing. it's as you can behead the
unbelievers, says you can rape the women of your enemy. all kind of other nasty stuff. they are just following that. we americans in this country, 90% of them are secularized and they are following the almighty dollar. they're not good muslims. isis is following their teachings and their beliefs. guest: i know that the point of view that is out there. behavior of some people in the muslim world is abhorrent, whether it's the treatment of women, just like in many other places where we have an etc. behavior that we all condemned. whether youatter use religion or something else to justify it. there is too much of it. we need to condemn it. whether or not it really derives out of their religion is a whole other issue. you and i know that religion can be used whichever way you want to use it.
if i want to use the old testament to justify certain things, i could use the story of samson about dying and killing the enemy, or do whatever i want to do. the bible has a lot of things, the old testament particularly, narratives on right and left that people can use. the question is how people employ it. over the years, here's what you have to realize, particularly with regard to religion. by and large, in much of the early 20th century, religion was used as a stabilizing force, and antiviolence force. the u.s. made alliance with islam in the middle east to fight, initially, the soviet union that was atheistic, and to fight the arab nationalism that was secular who are using violence more than any of the islamists. we all know what happened in afghanistan. matter, even early 20th
century, during world war i, when world war i emerged, the arabs of the region rallied behind the west and fought with the west against the ottoman empire that is centered in turkey. the reality is these things are fluid. how people interpret their religion, how they live their lives are fluid. be thelanation can't document itself. it never is, wethersfield testament, the new testament, ron or any other. koran or any the other. it's wrong to think that way. there are a lot of people who are peaceful and faithful. if you asked the judges whether they are religious, over 90% say yes. whether they are christian or muslim. and look at the division among those religious people in egypt, the polarization between people
who want to separate religion from politics and people who don't, the current governments and the islamists, including the mainstream islamists like the modern -- muslim brotherhood. divided, and it's wrong to just label one interpretation is the dominant interpretation of a particular religion. host: our guest was a senior advisor to george mitchell, president obama's special envoy for middle east peace. east dublin, georgia, democrats line. maurice, hello. caller: good morning, gentlemen. used theany have theory of ham in the bible to justify slavery, but i digress. there are many things to talk about with regards to this particular issue. only 3% of united stes identifies as islam, over the
one billion individuals identify themselves as islamic or muslim in the world. we only talk about 100,000 or so radicalized individuals. so really, push that aside. this entire conversation really unnecessary, and the sub trends are going to continue. this country, the united states, is only going to become more and more diverse. religiously, and demographically. and that's going to include people of the islamic faith. so we need to have a conversation with regard to that particular issue, about what is real. you can discuss the idea that there is a debate is the in the islamic world about modernity, and how that needs to come to if your -- the fore, want to suppress the idea of radicalism.
when everything else is a conversation that is going to continue, regardless of what the corporate media wants to have a conversation about. lastly, we are having these debates now only as a reflection of what's happening in europe. what about what is happened in africa and the racial element that goes into that? if you weeks ago you had this issue in the ivory coast. where was all the media coverage then? and for the incidents that happened in nigeria, in kenya. none of these instances of handwringing and corporate media and political individuals having these connections. host: ok, murray's. thank you. guest: we will separate to questions. many muslim communities around the world -- and only to use the term muslim world, don't really know what that is. muslim majority countries, and
certainly much of the middle east, the arab countries, are going through their own struggle internally. -- internally. the internal dynamic about how they want to define their societies is also a fight against authoritarianism and dictatorship. empoweredchange that by the information revolution, young people feel much more empowered than before. they've taken on a system and they're trying to get involved with politics and stabilizing. religion is inevitably going to be part of it, it's not necessarily the driving force, but it is one of the forces that is in play. we are going to have to watch it and deal with it and learn from it, we sometimes worry about the consequences, and deal with those consequences when they are dangerous. that is a whole different issue. in america, obviously, in addition to how we see the rest of the world have a particularly muslim communities and how we see these problems and respond to them, which matters, as i
said earlier, we also are going through our own demographic change. at the way you look the democratic party is enhancing just because the constituents who may get obviously growing. hispanic americans, african-americans, a lot of women and young people, typically the people who tend to identify with democratic party and increasingly we see more muslims moving in that direction. historically in america have been divided, depending on the year. they haven't taken one side or another as a commodity. same with air americans. arab-americans, some of whom are muslim, mostly are christian. over 60% of them, there's a whole debate about the percentages. in part because we don't have good census numbers on either one. but both communities have been divided, but they have been moving more towards the democratic party as well. may bemographic change
what's animating some of them. politicians are going to do what they do to mobilize support. sometimes they do the , in our debates, the world is shocked and they can believe what they are hearing in the hear some of those things. part of it is mobilization. the threat, obviously, all communities respond to they sense a threat. those bombings, let's be fair. they do scare people. and not -- and understandably. that's natural. it's not about whether you were on the white ring with a left wing. or the left wing wing. if i feel my face being threatened demographically, and the other side is adopting more modern interpretations of what this is, i would seek to build on the sphere, to grab more of the support in that direction.
so maybe the demographics is playing into it in terms of how our political conversations change. host: so with all meat, joining us. the next colors from arizona, mickey on the republican line. you are next. caller: thank you. i hope i can articulate. i'm calling because i'm so offended. all, i think republicans have been very careful to call out radical islam. they are not calling out all islam's. as you sit there and you divide the democrats and republicans, you are doing the same thing that you don't want us to do with muslims. is to articulate that somehow, all republicans are hateful, and they don't like muslims. i'm so offended.
guest: that's not what i said. caller: it's just like being called a racist, because you are republican. it's just so unfair. in,ve to just throw this because of other issues. iraq, remember about the going into iraq, would just stand out in my mind was when they got to vote, and the joy they had in showing that purple finger, i thought that was a wonderful thing. i think most people want freedom. i was overjoyed that these ,eople were allowed to vote anyway. host: thank you. guest: you are right about all people want freedom. i agree with you. i don't know where you got what i said, i didn't say that's what republicans quote want.
i said some politicians, referred to some politicians, how they are exploding this issue. what i said in my poll is actually that about the polling, when you look at the united states and see, ask them at do you believe that islam is incompatible with western values were not, we find is that the majority of republicans say yes, it's incompatible. where is among democrats, overwhelmingly said, over 70% say it is compatible. the two are compatible. there is a public opinion difference. 57% is aepublicans, slight majority, some of them have a significant minority who will not think they are incompatible. and i would add one more element. you, i think it's wrong to stereotype anyone as single dimensional, and certainly don't do that about
republicans are independents or democrats. i don't know how you got that impression, i'm sorry if i have given that impression. that's not what i had said or meant. and certainly that's all the numbers show. i want to say one thing about the republicans, in terms of republican public opinion. people who identify themselves as republicans among the electorate. what we have is, i'm writing a book on the evangelical movement, it's very important constituency in america. again, a lot of people misunderstand them because they think they're one-dimensional. they are not one-dimensional. the proof is many of them are supporting trump, who is not come out of the evangelical community, as opposed to ted cruz. he has not done as well as the expected within the committee, because they are not one-dimensional. but when you look at the evangelical right, people who are -- who say they are evangelical, not just born again christians, this is an overlap
between the two communities. they are not identical. people who say i'm evangelical, 75% of republicans. they are really, that's a cluster on the right. their attitude is similar to the rest of the publican party. on matters related to the middle east, and attitudes were his islam -- towards islam, they are far more critical than the rest of the publican party. for example, if you take those who identify themselves as evangelical out of the publican party, the republican party political attitudes start looking more and more like the rest of the american population. this is really a critical element. you can argue why the evangelical right has those views, whether -- particularly, they start with their interest in the middle east, with the fall of israel and the local prophecy. largel of them, but a segment of them. -- polled onn them
them, and you can go to our website and find a poll on evangelicals, probing into the religious concept. there is more to it. maybe there's a focus on religion, the contrast is they see in between islam and christianity. it's more pronounced. there is a lot more negative views of islam is a religion, or even the muslim people as a consequence of evangelical right views within the republican party. one more element i want to say, that i hope is ok. and that is that one of the things i tested is something that is common sense. and the common sense is, we see it all over the world. if you know some people, it humanizes them in the attitudes shift. not that you love people that you know, it's just that you don't think they are the devil anymore.
you see there is the good and the bad and everything else that you see with the complexity of people. you don't see them one-dimensional. asked in my polling, do you know any muslims, which one is closer to you, i don't know any muslims, i know some muslims were not well, i know some muslims very well. that's the question. we find that those who say i don't know any muslims have the most negative views across the board, whether democrats, republicans, or independents. if they know some muslims, even not well, they start having favorable views of muslims. and those who know some muslims very well have much more favorable views of muslims come across the divide. whether it's republican, democrat, or independents. it tells you, honestly, the dynamics if you go beyond this divide that has taken place. but there is a party divide, and some of that party divide could be even refined more by looking at specific constituencies.
host: andy from new york. caller: a very interest in conversation. this conversation has been going on for thousands of years. the radical evangelicals, the radical muslims, they being a progressive, these groups kind of scary. you take the evangelicals, they don't believe in climate change, i'm sure the radical muslims don't believe in climate change. things that are important to progressives. hear, i'mwhat i offended by these republicans always badmouthing obama. did do something this week, after the attacks. he went after the bad guys, i believe he got the number two and number three, in somalia, he killed about 150 of them. we haven't lost any american lives. but it's an extremely adjusting conversation. i do have muslim friends, i
don't think all muslims are bad. by no means. they are part of america. most of them are good, loving people. i don't think the carranza says to go out for jihad. i don't believe that. -- i don't believe the carranza -- the koran says to go out for jihad. look, in my own work, i try to be fair to what i'm studying. whether i'm studying evangelicals or muslims, arabs, israelis -- it's a complex story. fair in to try and be the conversation as much as you can. as i said earlier, i don't really have -- it's not just about muslims, it's about the evangelicals. i don't stereotype them. their radical, but it's not just radical evangelicals we have to worry about. every radical. basically, political radicals --
you don't have to have religion to be radical. religion is just one form of radicalism or that lends itself to radicalism. as i said, if you look both here and in america, there are a lot of people who -- what the premises or radical on the left , theite supremacists radical on the left, are not motivated by religion. religion may not be part of their makeup. east, thedle radicalism of the 1950's and 1960's was politically motivated and it was mostly secular. i don't really think that religion is the problem. we do have to worry about how we talk about evangelicals. they are complex, and clearly, they care. by the way, more of them worry about refugees coming from the middle east because of their fear. more of them say they are motivated by compassion. the you ask them about
golden rule, how important is the golden rule, do unto others what you want done to yourself, the overwhelming majority says it's the number one thing for them. so how do you manage this fear on the one hand and worry about islam, and your sense of compassion? therefore, it's a fluid conversation. you can't paint people into a corner where they are forced to take a position just because you are painting them into it, whether they are evangelicals are muslims. i have to say that, because to engagement tore play to the good side of people. everybody has complicated sides. divided amongd myself whether i go here or there, they'll make you my own views. i don't want to be painted into a corner. it's funny, i can be very critical of the american government here on the show, i don't like what we're doing here, i don't like what we're doing here. when i go to the middle east and i'm appearing on-air television,
i'm speaking at a conference in cairo, and i see a lot of people are unjustifiably dumping on the u.s. and saying america is this in america is this, i find myself rallying behind my americanism in defending my country. because that's what we are. even though i'm critical of certain aspect of my country, everybody is like that. host: one more call, robert, tuscaloosa, alabama, democrat line. caller: why is it that you don't say christian terrorists? why is it that you only use islam and muslim terrorists and not christian terrorist? christians of killed more people in the world than any people claiming their religion. not only that, in this country, where black people have two kinds of christianity, you a black christianity, african christianity, nobody i see on tv looks like this. again, why not you say the christian terrorists when they start bombing here?
this is where the bombing starts, burning houses, bombing homes. with christian terrorists, if you're going to say as long terrorists. -- islamic terrorists. guest: we tend to mostly the name of islam. i don't have a problem with calling it with a label. people do call christian terrorists. they may not be terrorists in the sense of domestic crime. we would call them criminals. people who attack them abortion -- who attack abortion clinic. by the way, israel terrorists, are calledorists jewish terrorists. i'll have a problem with that. the problem is broadening that to label people. i go one step beyond that in terms of not just pertaining to how we label terrorists. i think what we label as this definition of the muslim world i
have a problem with. --'re lumping christian countries that are so different, ideology -- ideologically, historically. you're lumping marco, egypt, ,ebanon, pakistan, indonesia malaysia. altogether as if they are a single one. imagine if we do venezuela and russia and america and is theland and say that christian world. it doesn't make much sense. it hurts more than it helps conceptually because we elevate the one characteristic about them which is the religion to the top. we know they don't behave that way. we know countries don't behave that way. we know governments don't behave that way. yet, we think somehow the that is going to gain us some -- i think we do a disservice by doing a. we focus on that one element. this is not to say that right now, we do face a major
terrorist organization operating that uses aof islam islamic theology to mobilize. whether it is isis or al qaeda. they need to be taken out. this is not to take away from that. whatever the reason for that coming into being, it is now a problem. it is a threatening problem. it is a threatening problem to europe. we have to worry about it as well. it is a threatening prong to middle eastern societies. we have to confront it as such. we have to certainly not underestimate the problem and define it for what it is, for sure. our conversation should be much broader and draw more people into it. frankly, isis and al qaeda is more of a threat to muslim societies than to the west and america. they know it in muslim societies. us asill push them to see a bigger threat than i says. the worst thing is if they start seeing america as a bigger threat to them then isis and are
forced to choose. don't put them in a position. >> our guests work on american sentiment toward muslims and islam can be found on the washington journal website. you can read as well as report for yourself. university of maryland, thank you for your time. we will continue our conversation with nation -- nathan sales. formally, the department of homeland security will talk about potential terrorist coming into the united states and the various ways the united states tracks people who come here to the visa program and other means. nathan of syracuse university joins us as washington journal continues. >> booktv is in prime time on c-span two starting monday night at a: 30 eastern. each night features a theory -- series of programs on topics ranging from politics and education to medical terror --
care and national security. plus, encore presentations from recent book festivals. tune in for booktv in prime time. all next week on c-span two. go to booktv.org for the complete schedule. >> starting monday on c-span, the supreme court cases that shaped our history come to light with the c-span series landmark cases erie it historic supreme court decisions. our 12 part series explores real-life stories and constitutional dramas behind some of the most significant decisions in american history. >> john marshall said this is different. the constitution is a clinical document. it sets up the political structures. it is also the law. if it is a law, you have the courts to tell what it means. what it sets it apart is it the fact that it is the ultimate anti-presidential case. it is exactly you want to do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates.
the supreme court said it should make the decisions about those debates. >> lan marquesas begins this monday night at 10:00 eastern on c-span and c-span.org -- landmark cases. >> students produced documentaries telling us the issues they want candidates to discuss during the 2016 presidential campaign. economy,told us equality, education, and immigration were all top issues. thanks to all the students and teachers who completed this year and congratulations to all of our winners. every weekday in april starting on the first, one of the top 21 winning entries will air on c-span. all of the winning entries are available for viewing online at student can.org. >> washington journal continues. host: our next guest currently teaches at syracuse college of law and was also previously at
the department of homeland security, served as assistant deputy for policy. thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. good morning. >> we want to talk about not only what is going on in europe as far as concerns of potential terrorists, but the potential of those coming here. first and foremost, your thought on brussels and the events there. if you worry about these types of political terrorists coming to the united states. guest: absolutely. brussels is a real wake-up call. not only for us on this side of the atlantic, but also to our european allies. since the civil war in syria broke out several years ago, it has been estimated that approximately 5000 european citizens have traveled into syria to fight with isis. this is a real problem. when i go back home, they bring with them terrorist networks, a great deal of trading familiarity with weapons, explosives. it is very difficult for european intelligence agencies and law enforcement personnel to
track everybody who has come back. i think this week, and intelligence agency in europe estimated there are approximately 400 isis operatives who have been trained and given instruction to carry out attacks in western europe. we are facing a very severe threat. my worry is attacks like paris and now brussels are the tip of the iceberg. >> does that mean the united states or are we talking other countries? >> what happens in europe doesn't just affect europe. it also affects the united states. that is because of historically strong ties between the two sides of the trans atlantic relationship. it is also because for the past 30 years, europe and the united states have pursued a policy of travel. what that means is if you want to head out to paris for vacation, you generally don't need to stand in line with the consulate to get permission from the british or french government. you just booked a ticket and hop
on a plane. we in the united states extend the same reciprocal travel benefits to european citizens, many european citizens. there is a risk that folks like those who perpetrate the paris and brussels attack might fly to the united states and attempt to a copper something similar on our side of the pond. >> this is the visa waiver program you're talking about the record exactly. concernedf comments with a program this week, one of which is ted cruz, spoke about what we should do with this, not only in light of current day situations, but europe overall. i want you to get -- i want to get your reaction. >> the attack in brussels is in of a failede fruit immigration policy in europe. that has allowed a massive influx of radical islamic terrorists into europe area.
europe is in the process of allowing policies to fundamentally threaten the of itsand security citizens. that is a mistake. the decent waiver program -- the visa waiver program was designed for a different era when those from europe were not perceived to be threats. programssor, does the -- is it sufficient in the current day and age in which we live? >> the program is both a potential source of threat and also a potential source of solution to that threat. saidhreat as senator cruz is fairly obvious. europe is home to large who havens of radicals both the capability and the intent to harm. in europe and potentially here in the united states. remember, a few years ago, more than a few years ago, about a the plot consisted
of a number of citizens of the united kingdom who were planning to detonate a peroxide-based bomb on a half-dozen trans theiric flights destinations in north america. unfortunately, that plot stopped before it could go operational. it highlights a very real threat. because those potential bombers were citizens of the u.k., it was necessary for them to undergo advanced screening to obtain a visa from the u.s. consulate overseas. they could just booked tickets and go to the airport. what can we do under the visa waiver program to mitigate this threat? i think what we have seen in the past half a dozen years or so is efforts to improve information sharing, collection and sharing of intelligence information. program, visa waiver all countries are required to collect and share basic information about known and suspected terrorists. they are also required to share with united states information
about criminal history files. fingerprints, other biometric information about people who should get a little extra scrutiny when they want to come to the united states. it is important, i think in this regard, in the past couple of days, it has come out that at least two of the brussels attackers were known to u.s. counterterrorism officials. that gives me some comfort that the system, while not perfect, is at least sharing some critical information. the belgian authorities, other european authorities apparently were able to identify to the united states at least two of these attackers which increases the likelihood that we would have stopped these folks from getting on a plane if they had attempted to export their terror to the side of the logic or >> our guest is with us to talk about the visa waiver program, how the u.s. charts people who come in from other countries and other issues concerning people coming to the u.s.. if you want to ask a question, 202-748-8000 four democrats, 202-748-8001 for republicans,
for 202-748-8002 independence. for those who qualify under the program, the we these are waiver program, why levels of scrutiny are there? what goes on in terms of information gathering? is there an interview involved in this process? >> there is no interview. that is one of the sources of potential information you lose when you move from a visa based system to a visa free system. whatuestion then becomes alternative source of information can we use and exploit to identify potentially risky travel? one thing you have to do under the visa waiver program is fill out an online application. it is not a visa application. it requires you to provide basic biographic information, your name, your expected dates of travel, and so on. this is the electronic system for travel authorization. that is one source of information that counterterrorism authorities can then use to run names against
watch lists of known or suspected terrorists and exploit in other ways to identify potential risks. i also mentioned previously some other sources of information such as criminal history files, watch lists of known and suspected terrorists. both of those types of information, visa waiver, they are required to provide to the united states under the law. >> how many countries get -- are on the waiver program? host: are they based in europe or the middle east? are 38right now, there countries. most of them are european. i initially, when the program was adopted in the late 1980's. it was the u.k. and japan. in the years after that, the program was expanded to include traditional american economic and geopolitical partners. mostly in western europe, but also australia and new zealand and so on. in the mid-2000, there was a push to add new security features to the program including information sharing
requirements i just mentioned as well as expanded program to america's new allies in central and eastern europe. countries like czech republic, hungary, the baltic states, several others. south korea joined the program. the most recent country was she chile in 2014. host: our guest is with us until 9:15. dora from jamestown, ohio, independent line, your first for our guest. formally of the department of homeland security. caller: can you hear me ok? host: go ahead. caller: i wanted to comment -- extremist branch of muslims. is it too late for that? host: that was our last segment. we're talking about the visa program and concerns other people have about people coming in. do you have a question on that?
caller: no. host: we will move on to robert in massachusetts, randolph, massachusetts, democrat line, hi. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to say that we do have thinkram that i don't europe is in more danger because of the way that they came across to europe, but i do think that we should see anything that needs to be tightened up as far .s the way we give visas anyone coming that we could identify, that could be a potential threat. these are the things that i think that -- i am trying to a lotn is that there is of good things we are doing. also, a lot of things that need to be fine-tuned. these are the things i like to
focus on so that we do not make a certain mistake that could be corrected. sometimes, because nothing happened here, we dropped the ball. that is what i like to see, that we focus on. >> go ahead. >> it is a good question. let me slice off one narrow piece of that. that is what sort of security benefits are provided by a visa system as opposed to the visa free system in place for much of europe. the advantage of having a visa requirement is that a traveler who pretends to come to the united states has to sit down for a face to face interview with a consulate official. this is an important opportunity for state department consulate officials to look somebody in the eye, figure out if there is anything nefarious going on. is this person honest? me?e trying to deceive
does this person have a good expedition for wanting to come to the u.s.? is an important way of screening for potential risk. all of that said, we shouldn't overstate the effectiveness of a visa based system and the visa interview. remember, all 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were required to get visas before coming to the u.s.. they are from countries like saudi arabia and egypt. none of those countries permit visa free travel to the u.s.. despite that visa requirement, they were still able to obtain the necessary permission to come to this country with disastrous results. we lose something when we give up a visa interview requirement. bad visa interview requirement doesn't always give -- get terrorists out. what we get in exchange, information about watch lists, about criminal history, that information can, in some cases, be even more valuable to counterterrorism screeners in the u.s. trying to keep guys out.
independent line, good morning. >> i appreciate you taking my call. the premise of this discussion is that everybody can get into passes some sort of security-based interview process. that is the wrong premise, in my opinion. we have a historically low participation rate. benefit for be some these -- for anybody coming into this country. we are letting a literates, people who do not speak english, and have no possible way that they are going to benefit our society. i think the question is, for someone getting a visa coming into this country, what is it they are going to do to support themselves and what isn't they are going to do to benefit the united states citizen? not so much that -- they passed the security screening. now what? now we have to support them forever. that is what is going on.
under the program, these are supposed to be -- supposed to be, emphasis, these are supposed to be short-term trips. we are talking about stays of 90 days or less. a business official from london who has to come to new york for a meeting or a family of tourists coming to disney world for a month. maybe not a month. i just how extensive the disney tickets are. we are not talking about a program that is used to facilitate long-term stays in the united states. there is always a risk of overstay. one of the risks you try to manage with this program is not just terrorists might come here and blow people up. but people might come here and overstay the terms of their visa rather than leaving after the 90 days they are supposed to. there are various measures in place to try to reduce that risk. important ones is countries are not allowed to
join the program unless they have a very low visa refusal rate. that is inside baseball. what that means in practice is the state's consulate official has made a collective estimate that the likelihood that somebody from, for instance, france, is going to overstay in the u.s. is very low. there is some sort of x anti-prior to termination by the state department that most of these folks can be trusted to return home and they are supposed to. host: we saw coming out of san bernardino, the issue with the woman who got the visa, could you talk a little bit about this and put a and discussed -- in the context of this discussion, concerns of their being other was to get a visa? >> there are number of ways to come into the united states. one is the visa waiver program. there are dozens of other immigrant status ranging from short-term states to longer-term stays too, in the case of the san bernardino terrorists, if the unseat -- fiancee visa,
potentially permanent status, permanent resident status in the united states. obviously, in the san bernardino case, the system didn't work. this woman who successfully , thered a fiancee visa are indications that she had been radicalized long before she came to the united states. despite that, the system was unsuccessful in routing her out. how do we solve the problem? part of it has to deal with sharing information. now, we're talking about exchanging in -- intelligence, not just with waiver countries, but countries around the world such as pakistan and saudi arabia. more intelligence sharing, more detailed investigation by the department of homeland security and the state department into those people who are filing those sorts of applications. >> new york, republican line, bill is on with our guests. hello.
>> good morning, how are you doing? thank you for taking my call. you briefly touched on what i was going to talk about. that is the student visa situation. we know that four or five of the 9/11 hijackers were here on overstate student visas. we heard not long after that, up until now, that there are tens of thousands of students here on overstay visas. we have no idea who they are, where they are. whether they are here or not. recently, james comey makes a comment that the fbi is conducting over 1000 active investigations on suspicious people. and that they are overwhelmed. how do we get control of this? there are people here who should not be here. thesee hear all of stories of organization such as the muslim brotherhood.
affecting our policy. vis-a-vis our immigration policy. how do we get a hold of this? >> that is a good question for which i don't have a very good answer. guest: basically, there are two things you need to do. one is find out who is still in the united states. congress, for more than a decade, has been calling on the executive branch to develop an effective exit system. basically, they're fine that everybody who is enter the united states has left. that is fairly easy to do when we're talking about international flights. swipe your passport. you can match the data fairly easily. things get more difficult when you talk about land border crossings. the number of land border crossings is monumentally larger than the number of international airports we have your that is part of it. identifyto accurately
who has left and who hasn't. ore you know who hasn't left have suspicions about who hasn't left, you have to create opportunities to locate them here in the united states. one way to do that is to ensure that any information about known or suspected overstays is pushed out to state and local law enforcement. isa person on a student visa also a member of isis has overstate and gets pulled over for a traffic violation, they would be very useful for local law enforcement to be able to pull up that information on the side of the road and then make an assessment about whether this overstay is somebody who should be looked at more closely. there are efforts to develop and implement these capabilities right now. we could do more. if the fbi director is saying we are overwhelmed, we need to do some more. host: the professor as a, that
these were supposed to be done nine -- 11 years ago. is is a manpower situation like you from getting done? >> i gently push back on the notion that nothing has been done. since 9/11, specifically with regard to international travel, the government really has taken some monumental strides towards improving security. shortly after 9/11, congress enacted legislation requiring all airlines that are flying to the united states to turn over basic airline reservation data about all of the passengers coming in. that sounds very boring and makes your eyes glaze over. of the mostally one important counterterrorism tools that the government has. this is how you identify potential risks. either by matching names against watch lists or by doing more sophisticated analytics with the data. you can do basically, a technique known as link analysis. has anybody ever used the same phone number as the 9/11
ringleader? has anybody use the same frequent-flier data to make an airline reservation as a known isis operative? build ae data, you can fairly conference of picture -- comprehensive picture of a known social network of terrorists. at to identify connections between known threats and they're currently unknown associates. that is one thing that congress did shortly after 9/11. in the mid to thousands, 2006 era, congress enacted additional legislation to reform the visa waiver program. we have artie talked about some of those measures, about intelligence collection and intelligence sharing in the online applications. those measures are another very important source of data that counterterrorism officials can use to screen for threat. host: clayton, north carolina. you are next. line. good morning. caller: hello.
host: you are on, go ahead. i am from an immigrant community. to tell that old people that i know -- old people that i work immigrants, they all really hard. if they can't find a job, they find a job. they pay taxes. they pay social security. somehowople think that they pay for those people. no. those people actually pay for local people. are on on drugs, who social security. people, they young work really hard. host: let's hear from bill.
erie, pennsylvania, independent line, hi. professor, listen. after 9/11 and that whole commission, i remember in there they said specifically about, i had four or atta, five drivers licenses. for anyone to think we have done something, there are six or seven or eight states to give a legal out -- immigrants legal drivers licenses to begin with. i would like you to address sanctuary cities. brussels is a sanctuary city inside the eu, inside belgium. inside that sanctuary city, all of the plots are made. they put the bombs together inside the century city. is exact same thing happening right under our noses. those brothers in boston, one brother traveled back and forth to god knows who and the fbi had them under a list. the people up in boston got blown away. don't tell me that they were
doing something if we are giving out illegal immigrants driver's licenses, that doesn't make any sense. we have policeman -- police forces all over america, when they stop somebody, they are not allowed to ask them are you an american citizen? this administration has taken us to a new low. host: but our guest respond. guest: let me address the question of brussels, in particular. i think the caller is exactly right. brussels has not done a very good job of integrating recent to that to that city, country, into the broader belgian society. you see in the district of brussels and other parts of the city, these very insular arrivalses of recent that are seed beds for radicalism. we have to make sure that we do not let the same sorts of conditions occur here in the united states.
mentioned the interplay between federal authorities and state and local authorities in screening for potential terrorists in the united states. it is a lot more difficult for that to happen if if local governments are refusing to do so. that is a very serious problem that we should look at. we have to be very careful to ensure that the sort of on integrated -- o unintegrated and radicalize communities in brussels do not replicate themselves in the united states. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 745-8002 for independents. i guess, nathan sales, formerly of the department of homeland security talking about these of programs.- visa
there is a debate going on about expanding the number of syrian refugees coming into this country. first of all, what you think about the debate, and what do you think of the potential of increasing the number? guest: that is a very difficult question. there are important values on both sides of the ledger. the united states is and always has been a beacon of hope for people around the world who face oppression and humanitarian catastrophes in their countries of origin, and who are looking for a better way of life. at the same time, we have to be mindful of the fact that isis of use the flows out syria and into europe for inserting terror operatives into the west. this is not to say that syrians themselves are sympathetic to isis. a number of them are fleeing isis, as they are fleeing the
atrocities committed by the assad regime. what we do need to keep in mind mayerror operatives represent themselves to be refugees. i feel that too, may be more, of the paris perpetrators, masquerading as refugees. i think two people who attacked ihe bloc stadium in paris -- will have to go back and confirmed that fact. one boasted to a magazine that he was able to go undetected among the streams of refugees. the refugees themselves may not be sympathetic isis, and maybe fleeing isis, but among the refugees, there may be terror operatives masquerading as people in need. the trick is how to separate them. host: from new orleans,
louisiana, charles is next. go ahead. caller: i have a question -- more a comment about what you just said about the syrian refugees. there is a lot of confusion with that. i don't claim to have the answers. seeing as the u.s. and its allies, coupled with nato, has been bombing of bombing, syria is thousands and thousands of miles from these places. people have been dehumanized, their lives have been destabilize, and they are looking for refuge. ironically, they are looking for refuge in the very countries that have been bombing them. to say that the u.s. wants to bring syrians here because they are seeking refuge, we are basically being infiltrated with syrians -- it just does not add
up. you are going to ask the changen, should the u.s. the visa? notgovernment obviously is concerned. as long as american citizens get riled up, it's ok -- i come from a military family. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: make no mistake, refugees are facing brutal circumstances in syria. they are trying to leave for good reason. chemical weapon attacks perpetrated by the assad regime. all the atrocities that we know about, crucifying people, burning them alive, drawing them in cages. they are leaving because the conditions are intolerable. obviously, a lot of policy and operational failures have to
happen to get us to this point. there is a lot of blame to go round in what allowed syria to get to where syria is today. as far as solutions, how much longer to be have on this segment -- that is probably a 45 our conversation. hourur or five conversation. it starts with stabilizing syria as much as possible so there is a safe haven where people now who are refugees feel safe. how to accomplish that? i don't know if you can do that with a no-fly zone, boots on the ground -- i don't know if it is american boots on the ground or nato, or a regional coalition of sunni states like saudi arabia and others in the region -- that established that sort of safe zone. that is the sort of fundamental
solution that is going to have to be implemented if we are going to give refugees a sense of safety and security, and remove their need to flow into europe through greece, italy, and iberian peninsula. so, visa program specifically, of you on twitter says, our engines given an id number? guest: each visa has an expiration date. it could be three months from now, or five years from now. it is not quite like a drivers license, but it resembles a drivers license in that it has a unique identifying number, which does not change, which stays with the person and their passport. similar is also
true of entries into the united states without a visa. the form that i mentioned previously, the online .pplication each person enters the united states, there is a record made, whether in the form of the visa or the passport that gets swiped. we also take biometric information. host: is there a regular check-in required, if you are going to stay for a length of time? it depends on the category. student visas, you are on a campus, so there has to be some sort of verification that you are continually and bold in classes. if you drop out, your entitlement to stay in the united states changes. for other types of entry, especially short-term ones, there's really no verification method. if you are fine from paris to atlanta for a two day meeting, and then you go home, there is no requirement that after you
get there, you check in with ice . alaska.is is joel from caller: good morning. thanks for taking my question. not sure how you can adjust it. outside the u.s. -- there are two sides of the equation, the other country -- are there any consistent changes you have seen in other countries when there citizens choose to emigrate to the u.s.? things. it is a really good question. what are other countries doing? let me tie this into the broader conversation. not just about moving the person generally, but moving of persons, managing the risk of terrorism more specifically. certain european countries -- not just european countries, i countries around the world --
have very significant counterterrorism capabilities. you think of the u.k., australia, france, although which have sophisticated surveillance capabilities, sophisticated human intelligence operations. other countries around the world don't have the same capabilities. reading about the brussels cell thation into the would perpetrate the attack last week, one is struck by the number of missed opportunities. turkey apparently notified the belgium government over the summer that one of the eventual suicide armors had attempted to cross the border from turkey into syria, which is a sure sign of someone going to fight for isis. turkey been deported that person back to europe. authorities questioned him, and let him go.
had very real world consequent this. it was an opportunity to stop the plot from happening before it got off the ground. unfortunate, the counterterrorism capabilities there are not what you would expect from the united states. host: denver, colorado, larry of next. caller: i would like to make a comment. according to "the washington million muslims live on this country. 9% are on welfare. welfare cash assistance, 60%. demand this and that. i think this is a country that is flat going downhill. they have no skills and are living off of the working people. host: in light of everything we know now, talk a little bit about -- i know you have talked
about some solutions and willingness -- do you think these incidents, say in brussels, what we have experienced in the united states -- to think those are good motivators to make the changes that you advocate? guest: i think of we don't start making changes now, what are we waiting for? the threat is very real. a hypothetical threat. we know there are radicalized populations around the world, especially in western european cities. used ins that were paris, in the brussels attack, very sophisticated, revealing of lot of weapons training and arity.ar
the threat is real. if we don't act now, my worry is that we are going to continue to see these sorts of attacks. frankly, we may see them over the short run, regardless of what we do. make a an opportunity to course correction. it is not just asking our european allies to share more information with us. information sharing is only effective if there is information to share in the first place. the starting point has to be refining and developing counterterrorism capabilities of some of our partners that are currently lagging. countries like belgium -- i don't mean to pick on belgium, they just happen to be in the news today -- countries that ,on't have first rate world-class counterterrorism capabilities. the u.s. needs to work with them to generate those capabilities. host: we currently do that as far as manpower to train,
financial assistance, does any of that go on? guest: it does. i would like to see the expanded. thepartnership we have with u.k. is really first rate. will be asountry we close with as we are with britain, but you can imagine the same sort of cooperation and exchanges taking place with other countries. i would like to see more of that. teaches atn sales the syracuse college of law. he was deputy secretary of policy. thank you for your time. guest: thank you, pedro. if you go to the opinion pages of "the wall street journal," there is a piece from a psychotherapist talking about what she calls a politically mixed marriage. "for 35 years, i
have been a card-carrying liberal married to a conservative. we vehemently disagree on every conceivable issue -- i can say that marrying him was the best decision i ever made and that he is probably the only man i could ever live with. a recent study from stanford university, and it found that the ferocity of political partnership in the u.s. is so intense that marriage is across party lines are now ."ceedingly rare, just 9% with that in mind, we want to ask you about politics, especially as you discuss them with family and friends. here is the question. we want to know, in these conversations, is it causing tension in your household, with your friends, with your spouse, whomever?
q can call and talk about the expenses you are having, especially with the presidential campaign, and as you talk with friends and family that are politically opposite of you. here is how you can give us a call. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents, (202) 745-8002 . if you want to make your thoughts on tensions you may be with family on politics on her social media sites, it is @cspanwj on twitter, and facebook.com/cspan for the facebook page. if you are around d.c., you will see many cherry blossoms. these are located around our building. tothe way, how they came d.c. in the first place, it was discussed on our "first ladies" series.
[video clip] became first taft lady, one of the first thing she did was have cherry blossoms buried around the basin. there was nothing to draw people or make it a beautiful place for people together and enjoy nature. helen taft wanted to change that. one of the first thing she did when she became first lady was beed t for trees to planted. they were requested from pennsylvania, but the japanese heard of it, and they decided to send trees in her honor as a gift, honoring the u.s. support of japan. 2000 trees arrived in january 1910. everyone was shocked.
the trees were older, very tall, and bug infested. it was decided that they would have to be burned. in fact, president taft decided they would be burned. the japanese were very understanding and accommodating, and decided to send 3000 trees in 1912. this is the north section of the title basin, where many of the original trees have been planted. you can tell the older ones withse they are wider overarching branches. this is where helen taft would have planted the first cherry blossom tree that came with the shipment of 1912. while people were fascinated by , it was dueapanese to her that the trees are here
today. aboutour conversation campaign 2016 causing tensions among your family and friends. that is what we want to talk about. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents, (202) 745-8002 . ellen inrt with indiana, republican line. how would you answer the question? let me put it that way. caller: i'm 83 years old tomorrow. host: congratulations. 14, israeln i was became a nation in fulfillment of bible policy. i have studied bible policy ever since, and so has my family. the reason i bring that up is so far, over half of it has been fulfilled.
the headlines in the last 10 years have been exactly what the bible predicted. studied bible prophecy, we could talk to muslims, we could talk to people of other faiths, and asked them, why do not believe what god said was going to happen so that we can all agree? host: sure -- caller: that would be my suggestion. host: as far as not agreeing, when you talk politics with family and friends, presidential politics 20 16, do you talk with those who disagree with, and what are those discussions like ? caller: yes. i talk about all the time. actually, i'm an evangelical. theke cruz, but, if we do wrong thing, based on bible prophecy, if we don't get to our
foundingour fathers, and go to the left, america is over. host: campaign 2016, tensions among your family and friends because of talking about the campaign. madison, wisconsin, deborah, hello. caller: the campaign has caused tensions in my family. i wouldn't say tension, but discussions. a lot of discussions at work. in my family, the biggest reason is because we are cubans. elders will say things to me reminiscent of cuba 1959. people want a change, and look at what happened. in my familyple are very disappointed in the last seven years of what has happened to america. the younger ones are leaning towards bernie sanders.
not sure they understand where the money will come from to pay for everything. you have people who lived through batista and the revolution, and my nieces and nephews -- my husband and i are kind of stuck in the middle. at work, i find it takes up a lot of time. heated very intense and -- host: your workplace is ok with these kinds of discussions taking place there? actually, not really. there are a lot of parking lot discussions, and behind. the conservatives tend to be really beaten up. they stay very quiet, and on their own, and have a tendency to not get involved in the discussions. that is not bashing the other side at all, i find they have fiscaltracized for being
conservatives. most of them are social liberals, but fiscal conservatives. i think we need to look carefully at a lot of things that have happened in the country. the last discussion about brussels, our fiscal house is probably the biggest threat. host: deborah, thank you for the call. again, if you are seeing tensions among family and friends -- you heard deborah talking about her expenses at work and home -- we invite you to give us a call, and tell us your experience. genevieve, colorado, democrats line. caller: hello. it seems to me that i've been watching, more outside the democratic line -- i'm pretty fixed on what i want from the democrats, as a lifelong democrat.
if they couldnder really elect their own candidate. host: as far as conversations with friends and family, do you get tension, or do you only talk to people who agree with you about these kinds of things? who would you talk to about it? caller: anybody who will talk back. i'm set in my ways. i will vote for bernie. confused.le seem especially in the republican sector. the lady who called earlier, about the bible -- in may god's word, but it may be
another person. -- the bible has been used to justify every atrocity. host: oxford, mississippi, independent line. caller: i just want to say that i have defriended all of my facebook friends who are troubled supporters. they have showed me who they are. i kind of knew that all the time. amongily is divided bernie and hillary. told everybody that he is a snake. i don't know why people support snake.y who says, i'm a republicans always talk about how president obama divided this country. trump has divided this country. whenever your friends put up a
trump sign in front of you, and pretending who they are this whole time, that is division right there. host: before you go, if somebody on your feet on facebook automatically declares themselves a child supporter, they are gone in your list -- a trump supported, they are gone in your list. caller: not automatically. there are trump supporters, who are poor white people, who really think i took a job. he even sent, you retired now, and i should have had your job. i think that when they display hate, and say, that is what you are -- the n word -- those are people who i thought i knew who they were. i will be done with them. because you are republican, i have lots of republican friends. we don't agree, but this has been more hate than anything i have ever seen in my life.
republicans are reaping what they sow. this.from twitter, "my boyfriend and i hold opposite political beliefs, we enjoy discussing politics because we believe in logic and reason." good morning. caller: things for taking this call. have amazing how we supreme court pass on, and the that the regulations president is supposed to nominate someone -- my family, when i tell them that, that is when the debate starts. i like trump. i'm a muslim, former marine, but i like trump because he is trying to stand up for the
people. that you have to always utilize the constitution, but they don't utilize it when it gets down to it. your when you talk to friends, is always a pleasant conversation? caller: it gets to the point where you are almost going to fight. i've never seen anything like this, and how divided people are. a lot of people just stay the same old way. blows.st gets to this is with females as well, they are just as talk as men when it gets down to the debate. i've never seen anything like that, the debate, and division among family and friends. host: mustafa in washington, d.c. askinglast hour, we are you are having with friends and 2016. around campaign
(202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 745-8002 for independents. bernie sanders had a visitor, by the way, at a recent campaign in portland on friday. o" wrote about it -- sense-called peace bird sanders crowd aflutter. here's what happens. [video clip] [cheering] sen. sanders: you see, this little bird doesn't know it -- [cheering]
oregon. i, being the only right wing evangelical in my family, and actually staying in a separate place for my family because we cannot discuss this without getting into serious arguments, like the last caller mentioned. my brothers get really heated and upset. it is really kind of sad because i have not seen many of them in a while, and i'm not even looking forward to going. host: you can avoid it whatsoever? caller: i never bring it up, but he always comes up. it almost feels like an attack anmy face system, and attack on god. many of my political beliefs come from my face and my walk with god, and how i adamantly support pro-life stances. that just infuriates them, for some reason. we don't even talk much.
i hope this election is over soon, and we can find something else to talk about. host: you don't have to answer what aboutn, but family affairs such as christmas and thanksgiving, do you get together with your family or do you avoid those as well? caller: i don't know if it is me doing the avoiding, but it is rare. host: let's hear from brian, san francisco, california. caller: in my family, it is just like the previous caller. it is something we cannot even discuss. i'm the only liberal in my family. man, it has forever between us.ge i got married, and i could not even invite my family to the wedding because they are republican. host: as far as the discussions you have, what are the topics that bring the most heat?
is the overall politics, specific candidates? caller: now, it is trump, all about trump. the conversation is more civil with my nieces and nephews. they are still on the right, for the most part. the division tends to be whether someone has gone to college or not. it seems that those who have gone to college now see a difference. cling tot do not, and law,ible, as the rule of are the people who will follow trump. virginia. lives in she is on the republican line. there. hi my husband and i were different parties when we first got together in the 1970's.
we became closer, as we went on, .nd parties changed too we had children, and my son married someone of the opposite party. we thought they were just like , similare-class believes -- it was so not the case. it to our family to pieces, and there were months and months in which we could not speak. all fundamental matters of life, we fundamentally disagreed. we get along better now, but it someone whoe with you disagree with on so many fundamental matters. at all we can agree on is sports teams. host: how long have you been married? caller: 43 years. host: can you tell me where you politically came from, you and your spouse. caller: my husband came from new york city and was raised by two
democrats. he became more republican when the tax system what kind of crazy back in the jimmy carter years. pariah ofs became the the nation. he felt so discriminated against. then, we became christians, and boy, that really threw the whole question of abortion into the issue, against abortion. into becomingphed a republicans because the democratic party left us back in the 1960's. and, it continued to go further and further towards the s.mmunist that is how we ended up becoming a republicans. we are not blueblood republicans at all. we are middle-class. we can't afford to be a democrat. you have to be very rich are very poor. host: let's hear from patricia,
massachusetts. good morning. tell us a little bit about politics making it tends with family and friends. caller: my family was large. we were christian baptists. when we grew up, half the family became much more religious, and other half became much more left. since obama was elected, that has since become excruciating. all her family get-togethers are .xcruciating at this point the half that is liberal left is getting pushed to convert, or else, you will die. all the stories being pushed by the conservative right are against science and intellectuals, and anything that makes sense. it is almost impossible. you can't believe what is happening.
host: just to make clear, did you become more religious, or move away from that? it.er: i moved away from i understand where they're coming from, because of my past background with that, but i am totally away from it. they see that as of the trail. i see it as they lost their minds. they don't think anymore. they just don't think. it is all about the bible, and whatever the local priest -- not isiest, but minister -- pushing. that becomes truth. i can't go there. it makes our discussions a form of agony. we avoid each other. host: madalyn from virginia, go ahead. you are on. caller: i came from a democratic state, and had to leave home to get a job. if you were not a democrat, you could not get a job, back where
i am from. the people are still democrat, they are still poor. now they closed all the coal mines, they have no jobs. when you talk to them about the country, and the money to russia and china, and the influx of muslims where i'm at now, they cannot see. they don't understand that -- they don't realize that bernie sanders cannot give us free insurance and free education. hillary, the same. she will keep obama's policies. when you try to tell them this, they don't understand it because they have not seen it yet. they all lost their jobs because they worked in the coal mines. it bothers me -- we have to have a military and close the border before america is going to survive. host: that is madalyn, telling us about her experience talking
campaignitics and 2016, and if it is causing tension with family and friends. you can also post on twitter. jane saying this, "i am still working on my daughter's liberal boyfriend, he is a hard case." i want to tell you about the c-span cities tour. this week, they are in tesco tuscaloosa. while there, they will be doing community outreach events, like with the mayor and comcast. of apriln the weekend 16 and 17th on american history tv. you can find out more on our
website. look for the city store -- cities tour. from utah, we hear from shirley. you are on. what really frustrates me is the fact that people will say, i'm this -- my parents, and everything have been that all my life, and i will vote this way, no matter what. it is ridiculous because the democrats, back when i was young, are not the same party that they are now. you need to look at their programs, and what they stand for, and not just vote for them because they are this or that. i am a trump supporter. i'm of the cost of -- i'm a
pentecostal. the senior citizens almost every day for lunch. it is ridiculous, how people are . host: eddie, los angeles, california, how are you? caller: fine. what gets me is the christians. they are wondering about bernie sanders. christ, he was teaching socialism. that is them fishing -- the whole question of my brother's keeper. it is such a contradiction of christianity and christ in this country. otherwise, we would not be spending the money.
host: as far as political discussions, how does it go when you talk with friends and family? caller: it goes crazy. when you talk about the separation between church and state, you talk about the evangelicals, all these different religious groups, even with aipac, that type of situation. i can't understand what that alliance is. we been attacked twice by these people. also, the book of revelations. a lot of these people are faking . i guess that is why we have so may problems in this country. host: luis is in central you, texas. what has been your experience? caller: i have a son that is very republican and a daughter that is very democrat. i'm democrat, so we do have discussions.
my son-in-law, who i don't agree with on hardly anything, is a much a democrat. i fightur years, he and very strongly over political subjects. this year, my son has decided that he is a trump supporter, and his whole reasoning for that is because he wants that wall built. when ever i have brought up other things about trump, he strongly disagrees about a lot of things. in his mind, all he can think about is he wants that wall built. he doesn't realize that he is racist. if you asked him, he would swear that he is not. most of his friends are
hispanic. when his son was dating a very girl, he wasc going ballistic. he couldn't stand it. that shows me that he is racist. you know, i was republican myself for many years, and i , and i may not agree with him, by respect his choices. host: let me ask you a question, if i can. chose you think your son to become a republican or believe that way? caller: like i said, i was republican myself for many years. my family was republican. i really did not even question the fact that we had always been republican, until i started getting older, and started really paying attention. i retired, and started really paying attention. of course, the republican party
started changing genetically. i realized that i didn't have anything in common with them, especially when they started talking about social security being a ponzi scheme, and they want to cut down on medicare. of course, the older i got, the more important these programs were to me. i started paying attention, and realized i didn't have anything in common with the republican party anymore. at a standoff. we all try to change each other's minds much. we listen to each other. whenever my son starts talking about -- he thinks we should change to be republicans. as al him, i cannot vote republican because social security and medicare are very , and i know they will be protected by the democratic party. that shuts him up because if i
lose my money, i will have to move in with you. host: thank you. one u.s. senator, a republican senator, has agreed to meet with president obama's choice to become the next justice of the supreme court. senator mark kirk will be the first to meet with merrick garland on tuesday. , senator kirkve tough reelection match with a democrat of senatorsand three gop have said that garland should have a hearing before the senate
judiciary committee. let's hear from colorado, mary. go ahead. caller: i can tell you, i have been a lifelong republican, and i'm having problems in my own family. of amily members consist we are quiten -- different in age -- we disagree vehemently even over the republican candidates. i think the other issue is my friends, there are people who are very liberal, but i have had to get on with my life because i have accepted them for what they are. they will not honor my beliefs. they don't understand. i'm very much a constitutionalist. i believe the pro-life. i believe in what our founding fathers set forth for this
country. it is something that everyone needs to keep in mind for this election. i am proud to say i am a trump supporter. the reason i am is because he has had the nerve to stand up to the american people where the washington establishment has not. they have been elected by the constituents, and decided to pursue their own agenda. mr. trump is the only one that i see the action is except for the people, and is protecting my interests as the middle-class american. i am a disabled american. i am on medicare and social security. i don't believe the republicans want to take away that. they want to reform the system. under obama, the economy has become an abomination. i know my husband and i have a difficult time living, as to our
relatives and family. risk. caused a huge i think maybe people are waking up, and realizing the change has to occur. host: that is mary in colorado, giving us her experience. next, colorado, independent line. caller: first, i am a truck supporter.- trump enough, i don't live with my family. they actually are also trump supporters. i remember, i called them and asked them, curious of what their opinions were, and they said, we are definitely supporting trump. to answer the question about my immediateh
family, we have a couple of bernie who will vote for . we have discussions, but it does .ot get that crazy conversations don't get that nse or heated -- they are coming from a place of why are .ou believing that generally speaking, they don't ever get to intense -- too intense or come to fights. host: that is malcolm in maryland. the center for disease control has guidelines for those exposed to zika virus, particularly those who are pregnant or plan
to become pregnant -- women who have had symptoms should wait eight weeks after the sim symptoms, and men should wait six months before having .nprotected sex doctors says we are learning more and more every day about the virus. democrats line, you are next. caller: good morning. there is one thing i would like to say before i start. thatere was ever a program made me proud to be american, it is "the washington journal." no question about that. host: thank you. caller: as far as my family goes, it is mixed.
my blood relatives are mostly democrats. through marriage, some of my relatives married into money. it seems to me that all of them who have money -- not rich, but well-off -- they are always republican. we have a conversation, a nice conversation, and respect each other's opinions. my neighbors -- i grew up in the town of 8000 that predominately votes republican -- as far as the neighbors, the ones i had in my neighborhood, they were all republicans. why? i have no idea. they never give an inch, i never give an inch. i'm a democrat 100%. i voted for obama twice. i'm a liberal progressive. i think the republican party is embarrassing, a lot of things they say. if you are a person with
fairly good money, why would you vote for republicans? the democratic party is for the people, they always happen for the people. as far as i'm concerned, the only good republican i can think of is to write eisenhower -- dwight eisenhower. he was a good republican. the rest of the republicans, i would not give you a nickel for. will joins us.s u we are talking about 2016 talk among familyons and friends. caller: before i answer the question, the caller from california is obviously illiterate. on to my response, i have had to tone down my rhetoric on facebook. host: why so? caller: especially among my family members who are logged in had someok, i have
rather heated discussions with them. i think of one brother in in maryland.ho is host: do you think because you are on facebook, and not face-to-face, people say things politically or make accusations that they would not make in a face-to-face conversation? caller: i would assume so. tonednow that you have down the rhetoric, any differences in the conversations? do you still discuss with friends and family on facebook or other social media? i have a more civil discourse now. i tried to find, with all people, i generally try to find points of convergence. here is one other interesting tidbit about my family. i'm african-american, and my grandfather, my paternal
grandfather, was a democratic precinct captain. for most of my adult life, i have actually voted republican. host: that is will. ethel lives in georgia. caller: second time caller. i really enjoy the show. i've been listening for about 15 years. i really enjoy it. before i get started, i wanted to say this. hence they have been having the needs,t republican party i'm amazed by all of the archie bunkers coming out of the woodwork. as far as talking to my relatives, i have two of them that i don't really discuss
politics because they get overheated. i'm the person that if you cannot sit down and talk about it, i move on. i don't believe in arguing. have a good day, pedro. host: thank you. diane cardwell writes for "the windork times," about a .ower project "a major project aimed at bringing wind energy out of clearedd oklahoma on friday. the decision also signals that the obama street should remains committed to encouraging -- obama administration remains committed to encouraging
renewable energy. iz said it will create jobs, reduce carbon emissions, and enhance the reliability of our grid." independent line, hi. caller: funny you are talking about energy, i am an energy consultant and on my way to a conference right now. host: what about politics discussions? are you getting into any discussions these days? caller: my father-in-law, he grew up in a different time when he was one of the few white kids in an all-black neighborhood, and he got in a lot of fights. he is a big republican, a drum supporter. i'm able to listen to him and charismatic. he is a great debater. wasar as my wife, who
raised republican, she is not so political. onot a bernie sanders debate and said, bernie is talking about going to college and he is talking about free college -- i got her feeling the bern. host: as far as your wife, have you been able to change her opinion? aller: i'm more so peacemaker. my parents are liberal hippies. i'm able to bring both families together without any arguments. no tension. you have to be up to see both sides of the story. ,ost: rochester, new york independent line. how are you? caller: good, pedro. what i say to my quinces, enemies, and friends --
acquaintances, enemies, and unsolvablel of these problems that politicians are trying to solve -- like a limited unemployment, how to eliminate the irs, including how flinta solution to the problem, which these experts are not able to solve. road to america allow me to show ,ou these solutions, and also
the fifth amendment, which says government must justly compensate. host: people have been talking about what they do, as far as political discussions. some are sending us family photos this morning. is mys jodie saying this tribe, she is showing, and get together every year at thanksgiving to do just that -- just that, talking about politics. tomorrow, james hollifield discussing the refugee crisis in europe. he is with the wilson center of public policy. we will also be joined by radhan of about the" talking
affordable care act. all of that tomorrow, plus a look at the papers, and your phone calls as well. that is "washington journal" at 7:00 tomorrow morning. we will see you then. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> booktv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some programs to watch for. this weekend, join us for the 22nd annual virginia festival of the books in charlottesville, starting at noon eastern.